[Bug 2080] R-090: Questions about the lexical and canonical rep'ns of dateTime from bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org on 2005-11-09 (www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org from October to December 2005)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:53:51 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1EZtCp-00072L-RV@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2080


sandygao@ca.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|needsDrafting               |needsAgreement
            Version|unspecified                 |1.0/1.1 both




------- Additional Comments From sandygao@ca.ibm.com  2005-11-09 16:53 -------
There is a conformance note in 2E for duration, but the same note didn't exist 
for other related types.

Also note the same wording appears in 1.1 part 2 (in an appendix) and we don't 
know where it should below.

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:53:53 UTC